Negeri Sembilan: Due process and natural justice must be observed

The state constitutional crisis that is playing out in Negeri Sembilan has grabbed the attention of the nation.

Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, the 11^th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, was elected on 29 December 2008 and has been outspoken in upholding judicial independence and integrity, against normalising corruption, and on the need for good governance.

Rules of natural justice apply to all

The purported proclamation dated 19 April 2026 to remove Tuanku Muhriz, which has been rejected by the Attorney General’s Chambers, fails on one or more constitutional requirements.

Article X(1) of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (the State Constitution), provides that it is only “if it is considered and determined after full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” that the Undangs (provided they are validly holding office) may call upon the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to withdraw from the exercise of his functions or to abdicate.

Quite apart from the validity of the purported proclamation and its issuance (which the Attorney General’s Chambers has said is invalid), no contemporaneous record has been published to show that any such enquiry was ever held, nor that Tuanku Muhriz was ever given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him.

The Privy Council decision in B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] recognises the landmark principle that the right to be heard carries the fundamental right of a person accused of wrongdoing to know the case against him and to be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict accusations against him, before any decision that is adverse to him is taken.

This Malaysian case has become the locus classicus on natural justice across the Commonwealth and common law world.

In Surinder’s case, following an inquiry, a police inspector was dismissed by the commissioner of police – an authority subordinate to the Police Service Commission, which had the actual power to appoint and dismiss.

Prior to the disciplinary hearing, the adjudicating officer was furnished with a board of an inquiry report that condemned the police inspector, but the police inspector was never provided with the report nor given an opportunity to address its findings throughout his disciplinary proceedings, only obtaining a copy on the fourth day of his trial in court.

In a famous and oft-quoted passage, Lord Denning, in delivering the advice of the Privy Council, said:

If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. The judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.

As every law student knows, even if an “enquiry” was purportedly held (albeit in this case, which the Dewan Keadilan and Undang said was invalid), holding it without the presence of Tuanku Muhriz would constitute a breach of natural justice.

If ordinary citizens are constitutionally protected from unlawful removal from office without a fair hearing, Tuanku Muhriz is entitled to no less protection. Failure to comply with Article X(1) of the State Constitution renders any such purported action to remove him invalid.

The Malaysian courts, if called upon to determine such issues, would set aside any decision reached in breach of such principles.

Unanswered questions

The following are some unanswered questions:

• On 16 September, why did the current menteri besar announce the purported removal of Tuanku Muhriz based on the purported proclamation – a proclamation which his predecessor had publicly stated was invalid and which the menteri besar himself claimed to have signed under duress and coercion, according to the police report he lodged on 8 September?
• If the menteri besar was coerced or signed the purported proclamation under duress, the public is entitled to know by whom, how and why, and why he lodged the police report only on 8 September, some five weeks after the purported proclamation? Further, why did he then later endorse the purported proclamation?
• On what basis did the then-state executive council purport to suspend the state secretary and state legal adviser on 22 September, as they were both federal officers, and the executive council’s appointments had been revoked on 20 September?
• What is the menteri besar’s response now that the Attorney General’s Chambers has stated plainly that both such officers were in federal service and not subject to the state executive council?

Given that Tuanku Muhriz has revoked the appointments of all state executive council members, the basis on which the state government continues to operate may be in need of some clarification.

Finally, the Malaysian Bar notes the media statement of the Malay Rulers dated 14 October, which calls for any difference of position to be resolved in accordance with custom and law and guided by the provisions of the State Constitution.

The Bar respectfully agrees. Article X is one such provision in the State Constitution, compliance with which is mandatory. – Bar

Anand Raj is the president of the Malaysian Bar.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: